Frank v. Schultz

Due process violations do not exist if the error the inmate complains of is corrected in the administrative appeal process.

Derrick Schultz is the Correctional Counselor at the facility in which Tobias A. Frank was a prisoner. The events preceding this appeal are as follows: Schultz believed another prisoner had contraband, and Frank signed the witness report as a “witness.” Schultz consequently charged Frank with an incident report with charges alleging Frank was in “possession of anything unauthorized.” Pursuant to discipline hearings, Frank was sanctioned; Frank subsequently filed an administrative appeal, and further filed an action in the district court alleging deprivation of due process for lack of written notice modifying the dismissal of the incident report in Frank’s files. The district court granted summary judgment on the deprivation of due process claims. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit decided the issue of whether Frank suffered a denial of due process regarding the lack of notice informing him of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s decision to remove the incident report from Frank’s file and reinstate the fourteen days of good time credits. The panel had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. According to Young v. Hoffman, due process violations do not exist if the error the inmate complains of is corrected in the administrative appeal process. Thus the panel held, consistent with other circuit courts, that because Frank did not lose any good time credits and because the Disciplinary Hearing Officer removed the incident report from Frank’s file, the defendants cured the alleged due process violations. AFFIRMED.